Dante had an especially uncomfortable place in the Inferno for those who sat on the fence in matters of moral importance.
Some believe in Pascal's wager. We don't really know if "god" exists, but we better believe he, she, it does, because the old jealous tribal chieftain in the sky will be royally pissed at us if he does exist. Mankind has survived many petty, tyrannical rulers, fiercely jealous of their power & quick to take offense. Donald Trump is not the first.
This concern begs the question, are you arrogant & self centered enough to think the grand creator & sustainer of the universe, who makes the galaxies roll, really gives a damn what you think? If you are an atheist, it it because "god's" grand, eternal plan made you one.
Such a concept is also homocentric. It assumes the thinking of the ultimate being is our thinking. We assume "god" would react as we would. How egotistical!
It also totally ignores what is the right definition of "god", which appears to be a concept without content. People have filled in this content with their own autocentric views. But is "god" the old tribal chieftain , or many other definitions, or the Spinozan-Einstinian concept of the sum total of the laws of the universe.
If "god" is anything, then "god" must be truth, the reality of the being we experience. Agnostics are not indecisive wimps. They have the courage to reject the easily accepted conventional wisdom of their culture and seek truth. Therefore Agnostics follow the only real religion, which is worship & seeking reality & truth.
I've often thought we should start The First Agnostic Church. Get nice tax write offs & spread the Agnostic Gospel
There is not necessarily anything wishy-washy about being undecided. Some assertions are logically undecidable, given certain definitions and assumptions.
IMO it demonstrates shortsightedness to engage in arguments over the existence of God, because the God concept represents an aspect of ultimate reality beyond our sense-world. Ultimate reality can not be understood from our very limited way of knowing. If you don’t know what you are arguing about it would seem more honest to not argue at all.
Our human-based questions about reality have no meaning from a higher perspective—for example the human concept of “existence” has meaning only to humans. Besides that, since conscious awareness is a profound mystery, we don’t really know what we ourselves are.
There is a third option, that of ignosticism. An ignostic says that the question of Gods existence is not meaningful. I lean that way myself, but that’s not the whole story so I generally refrain from labeling myself. I am wrapped up in awe and reverence and a silly label like “ignostic” conveys none of that.
Our limited human consciousness & experience cannot begin to comprehend the reality of existence & non existence, for the ultimate reality is beyond such duality, which we must use for our language to function. So arguments about 'god's" existence or non existence are futile, because reality may do both at once.
Speaking of once, our notion of time is also a function of our limited experience. See Einstein's General & Special Theories of Relativity. Eternity is not a vast amount of time. Eternity happens in the now. It is a function of consciousness.. We cannot really separate time from our consciousness of it, at least from our limited prespective..
I like your use of the term "ignostic". If this use is not simply a typo, it conveys a snide putdown of agnosticism. But agnostics, although they may deliberately decline to make a decision about things they do not , & perhaps cannot, understand, do not glorify ignorance. To admit & embrace ignorance is the road to truth, or at least increased understanding. We agnostics practice "ignosticism" deliberately.
"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis" . . . had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant."
.
Thomas Henry Huxley - - -> who coined the term "Agnostic".
They have an old saying in the East (I think it's the East side of Manhattan), "Those who say do not know: those who know do not say".The ultimate truth is ineffable, as our language creates duality, so the ultimate things can't be known or spoken. What is up is not down. What is black is not white. etc.
It is said those who have attained real spiritual insight, called enlightenment in Buddhism, experience the void, which is not nothingness but the a powerful revelation which is beyond duality & so can't be spoken. It is like the brightness at the center if a nuclear blast, so powerful our eyes & cameras can't record it, so it appears to be nothing.
This concept may be another religious fairy tale. Just because we would like to believe something doesn't mean it is true. But I think we should be very careful of anyone who says they know the true nature of existence.
If agnostics have the courage to reject the easily accepted conventional wisdom of their culture and seek the truth, then they have to immediately become atheists and even antitheists. Why? Because the conclusion of the non-existence of a god is reached at by reason. I will give you two examples. We cannot see, and probably we will never see, the center of the earth or the center of our sun or of any star for that matter. But we KNOW that the center of the earth is made of a solid incandescent ball of iron, and we KNOW that at the center of the sun lighter matter like hidrógeno is being fused into heavier matter (helium, carbon, oxygen, etc.) We know these things because, given all the indications, and using REASON, we can CONFIDENTLY get to these conclusions. The brain is another example: there is no way for our brains, enclosed in our craniums, to know anything at all, if not by using the information received from the outside though our senses. And with that information the brain REASONS that the outside exists. This same method can be used to reason that, given all the indications, a god, just like the one described in the Bible, cannot exists, and instead, there are plenty of indications that god is a human invention. Anyone honestly seeking the truth, should be able to accept the conclusion arrived at by reason.
There are solopsists who really believe they are the only entity that exists & everything & everyone else is just a figment of their own imagination. That way lies madness, or at least collossal ignorance, a failure to communicate, & egotism. Most of us (if all you folks out there really exist) have the humility to believe our petty ego did not create the universe & something we really don't understand is happening here
There are plenty of indication the "gods" of various cultures are human inventions based upon wish fulfillment. The wish for a protective parent, the wish for justice in human affairs, the wish to believe in life after death, & many other wishes have created "god". But reason does not tell us "god" does not exist, as the Atheists so glibly claim. Something is happening here, & facile religious interpretations of what "god" is doesn't seem to cover the bases. But if "god" doesn't exist, what does exist, or not exist.
We realize our notions of existence & non-existence are based on the duality of our language. It's very hard for us humans to wrap our heads around the notion that something can exist & non exist at the same time. & by the way, does time both exist & not exist based upon consciousness or unconsciousness
@Remiforce Reason is a perfect method to reach the conclusion that god does not exist. You probably have read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, and if you have not then I highly recommend it. He presents an excellent argument that reaches the conclusion that a god like the Christian one, cannot exist.
I was an agnostic for a few years but then that became, to me pretty wishy/washy and I was no longer comfortable riding the fence. I started calling myself atheist and felt much better.
Just because something feels good doesn't mean it is good. Heroin feels very good at first but can destroy your life. Atheism , with it's glib assertion that "god" doesn't exist, brings quick & easy closure, just as the religious fairy tales do. "Ah, at last I know the real answer". But it is an opiate, just as Lenin said about religion. You may have to get out of the warm bath of divine solace, but at least you have an easy , understandable answer.
Real Agnostics are willing to bear the pain of uncertainty & start on the hard, uncertain journey toward understanding. Not all Agnostics are real. Some are just crypto Atheists who are too cowardly to come out with their beliefs & choose to stay in the closet of pretending doubt. But to my mind, the Real Agnostics are Spiritual Heros.
By the way, I don't believe the apocrophal story of an Atheist suicide bomber blowing up 20 Agnostics in Stockholm.
@Remiforce Sorry, but to me it sounds like you have just replaced one religion with other. I have no problem with agnosticism, like I said I was one, but you just seem to be preaching to the choir. Many of us that identify as atheists spent years researching beliefs and comparing them with conclusions we had drawn. The last thing I need is somebody talking down to me about what I should believe.
I don’t know
Good for you. Neither do I. We people who don't know should get together & share our doubt. The symbol of Agnosticism should be the question mark "?"
Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge. According to the dictionary, an agnostic is:
"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
Atheism is a claim about belief. According to the dictionary, an atheist is: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
I am an agnostic atheist. I accept that it cannot be known if something we would call a god exists, or what its nature would be if one (or more) does. I am an atheist because I accept the science that says there is no evidence of a God (or gods) and that the universe behaves just as it would without one. No God is necessary so there is no need to presume there is one, or might be one?
And, although I seek reality and truth, I claim no religion and worship nothing.
Occam's razor, if something is not necessary, don't posit it. If the universe exists, assuming it does & is not just a figment of my imagination, but then what is "I" & then do "I" really exist, then something is happening here. "God" may be the pantheistic nature of existence, or it may be the Spinozan-Einstinian notion of the sum of the laws of the universe. But something is happening & we don't know what it is. But the wise don't confuse their minds with fairy tales about "god" They have the courage to take their reality "straight up".